6 ms·

The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No count

The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No country wants economic refugees.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
Why does Germamy willingly accept so many then? Genuinely curious
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  Either for humanitarian reasons, or because Germany has an ageing population and desperately needs young workers to support its welfare state.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    It is one. The majority of migrants, qualified or not, have a hard time getting work permits. Finding work, low paid but paid, isn't the main challenge. Doesn't do any good if you aren't allowed to take that work so. Also, our social systems are doing well. Thanks for worrying.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      "our social systems are doing well" If you include pension systems, not so much. "Altersarmut" ("poverty of the old age") was not a widely used word in the 1990s, now it is a frequent topic in German media. In many other European countries, old people live in their own properties with mortgages long paid off, so they aren't directly touched by rent increases. But Germans, for some reason, mostly like to live in rented flats and have a comparatively low home ownership rate, even in their old age. And the rents have grown quite a lot in big German cities. This means quite a squeeze for the elderly.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        True. And we have Hartz IV, a national shame in my opinion. My point to OP was that, besides these facts, our social system is nowhere near to collapsing. No matter how many refugees we take in. That we as a nation, and that includes myself through our representative democracy, are ok with poor and old people being squeezed out of living space by rent seeking investors and treating people under Hartz IV as second class citizens is a different story. But we have elections in September, so there is a chance to shake things up a little bit.
  - avh02 5y ago
    mostly the latter - plus a need for more highly skilled workers in certain shortage occupations.
- radiator 5y ago
  Germany or the government of Germany?
londons_explore 5y ago
There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Migrants often bring with them skills that the locals don't have, and in any mass migration, those who migrate (vs stay where they are) tend to be the fitter, smarter, richer people. The main reason not to take migrants is you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. You might alienate your existing population with conflicting cultures. And with enough immigration, the migrants might eventually outnumber the original population and persecute them (eg. indian reservations). It's all a tradeoff, but I suspect there always a few countries worldwide who will take anyone.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. Is that a real problem? Assume they get paid in local currency (e.g. US dollars). Option one; they buy a foreign currency with those US dollars, and send that foreign currency overseas. The dollars stay in the US and get spent. Option two, they send those US dollars overseas; those US dollars ultimately either come back to the US to be spent (in which case the fact that they circled around the world matters as much as if they sat in a wallet in Utah for a year), or they never come back and the US is ahead on the deal, given that the worker did some work but US society will never need to hand over goods/services in exchange. I guess my hypothesis is that either those US dollars get spent in the US, or they don't. If they do, it's just like a non-migrant worker. If they don't, US society got work done and didn't have to give back goods/services - bargain for US society.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    > If they do, it's just like a non-migrant worker. It isn't quite. Imagine dollars leave the US, get sent to Nigeria, and eventually return to the US to buy some music. Compare that to the case where the dollars do not get sent to Nigeria, but remain in the US. In the latter case, the Nigerian person wanting their music needs to find another source for the dollars to buy their music. That in turn makes the dollar more valuable, and reduces Nigerias buying power for US products and services.
simonh 5y ago
Does the not-free market have a better track record?
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The phrase here is "The State" and no. c. 30 states are "free", c. 130 are dictatorships now. Those numbers get worse as you wind back the clock.
EliRivers 5y ago
How are you defining "economic refugee"? Lots of countries benefit from people coming to that country to work. In many cases, those people end up as net contributors to the public purse; the individual is better off, the recipient country is better off.
DocTomoe 5y ago
This would not apply to "economic refugees", because those would - if unwelcome - lack the permission by the target nation to take them.
staticautomatic 5y ago
FYI US common law permits asylum claims by economic refugees.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Uh, anyone can make an asylum claim. An asylum claim is basically a plea to not be deported. It is usually a last ditch tactic when you are caught on US soil illegally, and you are not disputing that you are here illegally but are making a plea that you should not be returned anyway. It was a law introduced to aid Cuban boat refugees who were unable to apply for refugee visas and so always came here illegally. The question is what are the grounds that would make such a plea legally successful, and being an economic refugee is not one of them. So while you are correct that economic refugees can make the claim, you are incorrect in that such a claim would succeed. People with red hair can also make the claim. Anyone can make the claim.
  - staticautomatic 5y ago
    You are quite wrong. See Baballah v. Ashcroft
tpm 5y ago
a lot of countries want "economic refugees", even the same politicians that are posturing against them
matkoniecz 5y ago
> No country wants economic refugees. Depends on cultural differences and their qualification. For example basically noone complains about Ukrainian/Belarusian programmers working in Poland. There is quite significant presence of Ukrainians in Poland and it is widely accepted and so far no major problems happened. > On 14 September 2018, 33,624 Ukrainian citizens possessed a permanent residence permit, and 132,099 had a temporary residence permit.[4] About 1 to 2 million Ukrainian citizens are working in Poland.[5][6] There are also 40,000 Ukrainian students in Poland.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Poland

The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No country wants economic refugees.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

Why does Germamy willingly accept so many then? Genuinely curious

ForHackernews 5y ago
Either for humanitarian reasons, or because Germany has an ageing population and desperately needs young workers to support its welfare state.
- hef19898 5y ago
  It is one. The majority of migrants, qualified or not, have a hard time getting work permits. Finding work, low paid but paid, isn't the main challenge. Doesn't do any good if you aren't allowed to take that work so. Also, our social systems are doing well. Thanks for worrying.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "our social systems are doing well" If you include pension systems, not so much. "Altersarmut" ("poverty of the old age") was not a widely used word in the 1990s, now it is a frequent topic in German media. In many other European countries, old people live in their own properties with mortgages long paid off, so they aren't directly touched by rent increases. But Germans, for some reason, mostly like to live in rented flats and have a comparatively low home ownership rate, even in their old age. And the rents have grown quite a lot in big German cities. This means quite a squeeze for the elderly.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      True. And we have Hartz IV, a national shame in my opinion. My point to OP was that, besides these facts, our social system is nowhere near to collapsing. No matter how many refugees we take in. That we as a nation, and that includes myself through our representative democracy, are ok with poor and old people being squeezed out of living space by rent seeking investors and treating people under Hartz IV as second class citizens is a different story. But we have elections in September, so there is a chance to shake things up a little bit.
- avh02 5y ago
  mostly the latter - plus a need for more highly skilled workers in certain shortage occupations.
radiator 5y ago
Germany or the government of Germany?

londons_explore 5y ago

There are a few countries who will pretty much let anybody in. Migrants often bring with them skills that the locals don't have, and in any mass migration, those who migrate (vs stay where they are) tend to be the fitter, smarter, richer people. The main reason not to take migrants is you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. You might alienate your existing population with conflicting cultures. And with enough immigration, the migrants might eventually outnumber the original population and persecute them (eg. indian reservations). It's all a tradeoff, but I suspect there always a few countries worldwide who will take anyone.

EliRivers 5y ago
you might see substantial economic losses as migrants send income back home to support family. Is that a real problem? Assume they get paid in local currency (e.g. US dollars). Option one; they buy a foreign currency with those US dollars, and send that foreign currency overseas. The dollars stay in the US and get spent. Option two, they send those US dollars overseas; those US dollars ultimately either come back to the US to be spent (in which case the fact that they circled around the world matters as much as if they sat in a wallet in Utah for a year), or they never come back and the US is ahead on the deal, given that the worker did some work but US society will never need to hand over goods/services in exchange. I guess my hypothesis is that either those US dollars get spent in the US, or they don't. If they do, it's just like a non-migrant worker. If they don't, US society got work done and didn't have to give back goods/services - bargain for US society.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > If they do, it's just like a non-migrant worker. It isn't quite. Imagine dollars leave the US, get sent to Nigeria, and eventually return to the US to buy some music. Compare that to the case where the dollars do not get sent to Nigeria, but remain in the US. In the latter case, the Nigerian person wanting their music needs to find another source for the dollars to buy their music. That in turn makes the dollar more valuable, and reduces Nigerias buying power for US products and services.

simonh 5y ago

Does the not-free market have a better track record?

mjburgess 5y ago
The phrase here is "The State" and no. c. 30 states are "free", c. 130 are dictatorships now. Those numbers get worse as you wind back the clock.

EliRivers 5y ago

How are you defining "economic refugee"? Lots of countries benefit from people coming to that country to work. In many cases, those people end up as net contributors to the public purse; the individual is better off, the recipient country is better off.

DocTomoe 5y ago

This would not apply to "economic refugees", because those would - if unwelcome - lack the permission by the target nation to take them.

staticautomatic 5y ago

FYI US common law permits asylum claims by economic refugees.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Uh, anyone can make an asylum claim. An asylum claim is basically a plea to not be deported. It is usually a last ditch tactic when you are caught on US soil illegally, and you are not disputing that you are here illegally but are making a plea that you should not be returned anyway. It was a law introduced to aid Cuban boat refugees who were unable to apply for refugee visas and so always came here illegally. The question is what are the grounds that would make such a plea legally successful, and being an economic refugee is not one of them. So while you are correct that economic refugees can make the claim, you are incorrect in that such a claim would succeed. People with red hair can also make the claim. Anyone can make the claim.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  You are quite wrong. See Baballah v. Ashcroft

tpm 5y ago

a lot of countries want "economic refugees", even the same politicians that are posturing against them

matkoniecz 5y ago

> No country wants economic refugees. Depends on cultural differences and their qualification. For example basically noone complains about Ukrainian/Belarusian programmers working in Poland. There is quite significant presence of Ukrainians in Poland and it is widely accepted and so far no major problems happened. > On 14 September 2018, 33,624 Ukrainian citizens possessed a permanent residence permit, and 132,099 had a temporary residence permit.[4] About 1 to 2 million Ukrainian citizens are working in Poland.[5][6] There are also 40,000 Ukrainian students in Poland.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Poland